We are not pundits. We are not talking point aficionados, we are not talking heads. We are citizens.

III% is not interested in a media war, nor do we care for local journalists aim at distortion of the facts. Action is our first and foremost priority. Motivated by no less than a desire to remind those who have forgotten their civic duty and their right to protect their community. Idaho III% is not change, we are not radical right wing conservatives; we are a reminder. Our actions and our ambitions are not the product of an emerging ideology based in individual liberty. We are a resurgence of already existing foundations upon which every aspect of American Freedom is built. The media focus of Idaho’s III% as of late seems to be the right to bear arms. In isolation, it would appear as if our activism, rallies, and rebuttals are rooted exclusively in the right to arm ourselves. However, our efforts gravitate toward those rights which are most prominently in danger. If excessive bail, excessive fines, or cruel and unusual punishments become commonplace, Idaho’s III% would appear to be 8th Amendment nuts. A broad-spectrum analysis of the greater issue is necessary for the complete understanding our goal as an organization.

Recently an article published by the Idaho Press Tribune sought to passively downplay and distort our efforts to stand guard at recruiting stations this past week. Surrounding each and every aspect of our campaign in quotations immediately leads the reader to suppose that our efforts are hare-brained, controversial, or should at least be brought under heavy scrutiny. Also, using inflammatory words and statements such as “have planted themselves near the military recruiting offices…” illustrates a group of uncooperative, unwelcome squatters. This is far from the truth. The author also quotes our President Brandon Curtiss as saying “We adopt low-income families during the holidays to help bringing gift and cash donations. While this is not necessarily a negative distortion, it remains untrue. We adopt families in need and do not cater to only those who receive a low income. Additionally, Curtiss said noting of the troops or recruiters welcoming us. They are not in a position to support nor discourage our presence. The original question asked was how the public received us. Again, a small distortion but a distortion nonetheless. Either these individuals are rookie journalists or engage in willful misrepresentation, both of which are unacceptable.

More disturbingly, the Times News recently published an article on the subject of fear. The piece focuses on the perceived over-reactions and fear driven motives of recent undertakings to guard recruiting stations by Idaho’s III% and others. Ironically, the Times news and other liberal pockets of journalists have historically used emotion-driven arguments, deliberate avoidance of rational discussion, and blatant refusal to acknowledge the severe implications of domestic attacks.

You know something is wrong in journalism when blatant voluntary ignorance of current events results in damnation of increased security measures implemented to prevent further attacks. Actions taken by citizens around the country to defend recruiting centers are the result of actual attacks taking place on American soil. There are no “what-ifs” or “far-fetched nightmare scenarios” here. The Webster’s Dictionary has ‘far ‘fetched defined as: Barely believable; strained; unlikely. The threat of domestic terrorism is no longer unlikely, it is a reality. This has been demonstrated multiple times. On January 1, 2009 in Little Rock Arkansas, Abdulhakim Mujahid Muhammad opened fire on a recruiting station killing one recruiter and wounding another. As the author of Times piece states “As a community, let’s take a deep breath and allow for logic, not emotion, to guide us. It’s time we got a grip.” In this circumstance, logic would dictate that in order to protect public safety, an acknowledgment of the attacks would result in measures to prevent them. Only emotions based in irrational fears would reject this motion and dismiss it.

To label a group attending a public forum in opposition of a U.N. sponsored refugee program as ‘anti-refugee’ is a knee-jerk reaction and absolutist mindset. Cultural diversity always has the benefit for enriching our community. This includes expanded worldview, variety in authentic cuisines, and language programs. Immigration goes through a legal process. The College of Southern Idaho is an avenue for forced UN immigration. The United Nations officials are circumventing the legal immigration process though these programs our sovereign decision making is being surrendered to the U.N and the Islamic Coalition. Both of these groups benefit financially by advocating drag-net immigration policies in war-torn countries and failed states. The inability for incoming refugees to provide credible documentation proving they have no criminal background or that they do not have terrorist links puts the communities into which they are dumped at risk. We have seen countless occurrences of immigrants in this country who have committed a litany of crimes, including murder. A large percentage of these individuals had been deported back to their home country several times. This further demonstrates programs like the CSI refugee program’s inability to successfully vet incoming refugees. We are not anti-refugee. What we are opposed to is a crumbling, broken system that provides infiltration of the evil elements from war-torn areas of the world and relegating our legal decision making to non-elected officials.

In light of all the accusations of overreacting and fear-mongering rhetoric, what solutions do the Times news staff propose? We have seen law-abiding citizens exercise their constitutional right and civic duty to protect the men and women who protect us. The notion that citizens are waving guns is absurd. Not one instance has been documented where a participant in the campaign has waved a gun at anything. No weapon has been pointed, aimed, nor fired in Idaho. We are not associated with any national movement and therefore, cannot be associated with the irresponsible handling of weapons at recruiting stations in other states. If taking a position that acknowledges the implications of real attacks is considered hate-mongering, then we can conclude that this country has lost its way.

Wild imaginations are not responsible for a concerted effort to increase security nationwide. These attacks have taken place. Americans have lost their lives. It is not fantasy. I urge you to write to the families of those service members and convince them of the unseen foes and imaginary scenarios you speak of. Please tell them about the imaginary threat that killed their children. Perhaps the Times news should encourage positive community activism rather than spit fear-mongering propaganda about a constitutionally protected right. Just as a body with cancer begins to attack its own healthy cells, a dying republic will attack the foundations and principles it was built on, as well as those individuals who seek to remind the public of their origins.

Truth in journalism does not involve misquoting members, contacting the Press Officer on false pretenses, out-of-context soundbites, or the use of misleading synonyms when it comes to reporting. The use of these mechanisms add slight changes in perception to our endeavors, which has the potential to drastically alter public opinion. True public opinion should also not be illustrated as anything less than a general level of support from every sect of the community. Shame on you Idaho Press Tribune, Channel 2 News (KBOI), and Times News.

Idaho’s III% will not play this game. We do not debate the Constitution.